 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
In practice, the course of an action departs in important respects from the course
envisaged in the RHC.
(a)
First, as pointed out previously, the time-limits prescribed by the rules set out in
Column C are not in practice observed (for example, because of intervention of
a Column D variable or because one or other of the parties simply ignores the
time-limit).
(b)
Secondly, the sequence of discovery (Row 19B) and the summons for directions
(Row 22B) is usually inverted in practice. Generally, discovery has not taken
place before the summons for directions is heard and a direction for the
exchange of lists of documents is usually given at the hearing of the summons.
(c)
Thirdly, the RHC's scheme omits to set any time-limit for making the
application for leave to set the case down for trial (Row 24). Previously, the
practice at the summons for directions was simply for that application to be
adjourned sine die with liberty to restore. However, in March 2002, the High
Court masters decided as a matter of practice to direct that the application to set
down had to be made by a stated time (usually within 14 days after the
anticipated completion of any outstanding pre-trial steps). The Registrar
notified the Law Society accordingly by letter dated 15 March 2002, and this
has since been the practice followed.
(d)
Fourthly, cases commonly reach the checklist stage still not ready for trial,
requiring the application to set down to be adjourned to permit further trial
preparation to proceed.
|
 |
|